Sunday, October 31, 2004
Like Mother Like Son
Sounding a lot like Pat Buchanan, ketchup heir and John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz took a swipe at American Jews and Israel on a recent campaign stop.
Between Te-ray-zuh and her son, they just can't seem to control the garbage that comes out of their mouths.
Between Te-ray-zuh and her son, they just can't seem to control the garbage that comes out of their mouths.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
100,000 "Excess" Iraqi Deaths
A study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and published online by the Lancet medical journal showed 100,000 excess deaths since the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- naturally due to, you guessed it, the increased air strikes of U.S. forces.
Lancet editor Richard Horton pontificated as follows:
Well there are two questions I would like to raise -- did the geniuses at Johns Hopkins take into account that these insurgents frequently hide out among women and children? And with that being the case, why is it the fault of Americans or our allies, since these lovely insurgents know that the coalition forces are after them? Also, how do we know that these civilians are not purposely hiding insurgents? After all, it's not like the Americans deliberately go after women and children.
Lancet editor Richard Horton pontificated as follows:
But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq -- in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war
Well there are two questions I would like to raise -- did the geniuses at Johns Hopkins take into account that these insurgents frequently hide out among women and children? And with that being the case, why is it the fault of Americans or our allies, since these lovely insurgents know that the coalition forces are after them? Also, how do we know that these civilians are not purposely hiding insurgents? After all, it's not like the Americans deliberately go after women and children.
Arafat Off to Lovely Paree
The beloved godfather of terror will be taken to Paris for treatment. And surprise surprise, Israelis say he'll be able to return afterwards (if he's still alive).
Sadly, this is even too good for him, compared to how his many victims died.
Sadly, this is even too good for him, compared to how his many victims died.
Internationalist Judges
Who needs an internationalist President when you can have internationalist Supreme Court justices?
The MSM is Getting Desperate
With the missing weapons scandal, the mainstream media is pulling out all stops to get John Kerry into the White House.
AP ran a piece on how the IAEA warned the United States about the explosives at Al Qaqaa.
In the same vein, the New York Times ran a piece on how Al Qaqaa was looted shortly after the arrival of U.S. troops.
However, Ken Dixon, a former G.I. with the 101st Airborne Division, and one of the first Americans on the scene said there was no way there were 380 tons of weapons in Al Qaqaa.
The Washington Times reports of evidence that Russia may have helped moved the weapons out of Iraq and into Syria
Quite frankly, I would take the word of an American soldier over that of a New York Times writer any day.
On another note, ABC News has a video of a terrorist threat against the U.S. which they want to ensure is authentic. Somehow I think that if this was something helpful to Kerry, they would air the tape in two seconds. But they're taking a wait and see approach:
And finally, Worldnetdaily.com seems to be the only media outlet reporting the discovery of a third communist document linking John Kerry and his anti-war activities to Hanoi.
Go figure.
AP ran a piece on how the IAEA warned the United States about the explosives at Al Qaqaa.
In the same vein, the New York Times ran a piece on how Al Qaqaa was looted shortly after the arrival of U.S. troops.
However, Ken Dixon, a former G.I. with the 101st Airborne Division, and one of the first Americans on the scene said there was no way there were 380 tons of weapons in Al Qaqaa.
The Washington Times reports of evidence that Russia may have helped moved the weapons out of Iraq and into Syria
Quite frankly, I would take the word of an American soldier over that of a New York Times writer any day.
On another note, ABC News has a video of a terrorist threat against the U.S. which they want to ensure is authentic. Somehow I think that if this was something helpful to Kerry, they would air the tape in two seconds. But they're taking a wait and see approach:
Ross and other ABC staffers say they believe that a Bush administration official leaked the story to Internet gossip Matt Drudge as a way of pressuring the network into airing the tape, which would heighten concerns about terrorism in the final week of the president's reelection campaign. They note that whoever gave the information to Drudge had a transcript of the tape
And finally, Worldnetdaily.com seems to be the only media outlet reporting the discovery of a third communist document linking John Kerry and his anti-war activities to Hanoi.
Go figure.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Democrats Are At It Again
They've already launched nine lawsuits in Florida. Apparently, when election officials discard incomplete ballots or those where the citizenship box is left blank, that's grounds for a lawsuit.
When Democrats want to get people out and vote, they're not kidding. And they're not choosey over who gets this privilege
When Democrats want to get people out and vote, they're not kidding. And they're not choosey over who gets this privilege
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
John Kerry's VVAW: A Puppet of Hanoi
Two recently discovered documents show a close working relationship with John Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Hanoi.
More...
The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document:
The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.
The second document, captured by US military forces in South Vietnam on May 12, 1972, is a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States. The fifth paragraph of this document makes clear that the Vietnamese communists were utilizing for their propaganda purposes the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The protest described as occurring from April 19 through April 22, 1971 coincides directly with the dates of Dewey Canyon III, the Washington, DC, protest led by John Kerry, during which John Kerry’s testimony before Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee was a televised centerpiece. The description of the protest activities in the Directive even include the "return their medals" ceremony in which John Kerry and other VVAW members threw their medals and/or ribbons toward the steps of the US Capitol, with several shouting threats of violence against their government as they did so.
More...
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Rosie O'Donnell At It Again
Time again for another anti-celebrity rant on my part.
Addressing a nearly vacant nightclub in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on Saturday October 23, Rosie O'Donnell whole-heartedly endorsed the idea of America having to pass a "global test" in order to take preemptive action.
Let's see, decency, humanity and integrity according to whom? Germany who started two World Wars and perfected the practice of high-tech genocide? France who basically served up her Jewish population to the Nazis on a silver platter? The consortium of rogue states known as the United Nations?
Apparently so.
She ranted on further that the Bush administration's actions
Wrong! This country was built on the principles outlined in our Declaration of Independence first, then our Constitution. The job of President of the United States and all elected officials for that matter is to uphold the Constitution.
But this woman doesn't get it.
Why, in these people's warped world view is the United Nations a sacrosanct organization whereas the Bush administration can do nothing right? This cow conveniently forgets that this country was founded upon the principles of limited government where its citizens would live by the moral code typified in the Ten Commandments, NOT the United Nations.
But perhaps that's more information than the walnut-sized brains of these celebrities can process. So I'll try and make it easy for Ms. O'Donnell and her ilk by asking two simple questions:
"When was the last time you or anyone you know voted for Kofi Annaan or his predecessor Javier Perez de Cuellar in any American election?
"With the answer to the first question obviously being 'no' why would you or any American with a brain want to give these unelected officials a say in any aspect of American government?"
Addressing a nearly vacant nightclub in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on Saturday October 23, Rosie O'Donnell whole-heartedly endorsed the idea of America having to pass a "global test" in order to take preemptive action.
He (President Bush) never passed one at Harvard or Yale, but whatever. But there is a global test. It's the global test of decency, of humanity, of integrity. That's what our country stands for as we lead the free world. Let's take back our country. Let's elect John Kerry.
Let's see, decency, humanity and integrity according to whom? Germany who started two World Wars and perfected the practice of high-tech genocide? France who basically served up her Jewish population to the Nazis on a silver platter? The consortium of rogue states known as the United Nations?
Apparently so.
She ranted on further that the Bush administration's actions
(go) against the foundation of what our country was built on," giving an example of the Administration telling the "United Nations we would ignore their doctrine and their resolutions.
Wrong! This country was built on the principles outlined in our Declaration of Independence first, then our Constitution. The job of President of the United States and all elected officials for that matter is to uphold the Constitution.
But this woman doesn't get it.
Why, in these people's warped world view is the United Nations a sacrosanct organization whereas the Bush administration can do nothing right? This cow conveniently forgets that this country was founded upon the principles of limited government where its citizens would live by the moral code typified in the Ten Commandments, NOT the United Nations.
But perhaps that's more information than the walnut-sized brains of these celebrities can process. So I'll try and make it easy for Ms. O'Donnell and her ilk by asking two simple questions:
"When was the last time you or anyone you know voted for Kofi Annaan or his predecessor Javier Perez de Cuellar in any American election?
"With the answer to the first question obviously being 'no' why would you or any American with a brain want to give these unelected officials a say in any aspect of American government?"
Friday, October 22, 2004
Wife Beatings Justified According to Women in Turkey
Somehow I'm not surprised by this. It just goes to show you that women are not always the innocents. For example, in the case of Rofayda Qaoud, it was her own mother who killed her for the "crime" of being raped and impregnated by her own brothers. In other examples, you hear of mothers dragging their little girls to be circumcised. In this case, the very victims of domestic violence feel they deserve to be beaten if they disagree with their husbands, burn a meal, neglect the children or refuse to have sex.
Liberal Thugs At It Again
Two men were arrested last night for throwing custard pies at conservative columnist Ann Coulter when she spoke at the University of Arizona's Centennial Hall.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Why Vote For President Bush?/What's Wrong With John Kerry
Hugh Hewitt.com is conducting a blog symposium, asking the very same question. Here's my take:
In response to the first question, I would have to say it’s because President Bush has shown that he has a backbone in dealing with terrorists. While some people snort derisively that President Bush is acting “unilaterally” (as though it’s the equivalent of nuking Africa because of a bad hair day), that is a good thing. By acting unilaterally, President Bush is saying in essence “I don’t care if you don’t like me. This is not a Mr. Congeniality contest. My job is to protect the American people, and I will not hesitate to use force if I feel it’s in the rational self-interest of my country.”
Remember Ronald Reagan’s critics also called him “stupid” and a warmonger, and snidely referred to his defense build up as “Star Wars.” Yet I never remembered any of these same liberal critics referring to the Soviet Union’s arms build by the same name.
In terms of domestic issues, I’m all for tax cuts. Granted, I don’t make $200K per year. So I wouldn’t be adversely affected. But in the past, I have gotten money back – not as much as I would have liked, but better than nothing. Even so, people forget that the American dream has been about people coming here from all over to make a better life for themselves, by working to the best of their ability and making as much money for themselves as possible.
But in John Kerry’s view, the American Dream is one of a nanny state where need is rewarded and productive ability is punished. And yet, that’s not the biggest problem I have with Kerry.
The fact is, he’s a traitor.
Granted, he goes on about how he served in Vietnam. Well, Benedict Arnold served honorably in the Revolutionary War, and Adolf Hitler served in World War I. Yet, even to this day, we rightly remember them as the traitors and evil monsters they were. Why should John Kerry be viewed any differently?
If that’s not enough of a reason, Kerry believes we must prostrate ourselves before the United Nations and the “international community.” He believes that deaths of American soldiers are justified only as part of a U.N. effort
The only thing Kerry has been consistent on is his belief in using force only through the United Nations
This is a man who voted against supporting the “right wing Contras” in their fight against communism, and who only seems to want to use American troops for “humanitarian” purposes.
This is a man who believed America should have had a nuclear freeze during the Cold War. And now he has the unmitigated gall to bring up Ronald Reagan. The fact is, John Kerry has never met any communists who he didn't love.
In response to the first question, I would have to say it’s because President Bush has shown that he has a backbone in dealing with terrorists. While some people snort derisively that President Bush is acting “unilaterally” (as though it’s the equivalent of nuking Africa because of a bad hair day), that is a good thing. By acting unilaterally, President Bush is saying in essence “I don’t care if you don’t like me. This is not a Mr. Congeniality contest. My job is to protect the American people, and I will not hesitate to use force if I feel it’s in the rational self-interest of my country.”
Remember Ronald Reagan’s critics also called him “stupid” and a warmonger, and snidely referred to his defense build up as “Star Wars.” Yet I never remembered any of these same liberal critics referring to the Soviet Union’s arms build by the same name.
In terms of domestic issues, I’m all for tax cuts. Granted, I don’t make $200K per year. So I wouldn’t be adversely affected. But in the past, I have gotten money back – not as much as I would have liked, but better than nothing. Even so, people forget that the American dream has been about people coming here from all over to make a better life for themselves, by working to the best of their ability and making as much money for themselves as possible.
But in John Kerry’s view, the American Dream is one of a nanny state where need is rewarded and productive ability is punished. And yet, that’s not the biggest problem I have with Kerry.
The fact is, he’s a traitor.
Granted, he goes on about how he served in Vietnam. Well, Benedict Arnold served honorably in the Revolutionary War, and Adolf Hitler served in World War I. Yet, even to this day, we rightly remember them as the traitors and evil monsters they were. Why should John Kerry be viewed any differently?
If that’s not enough of a reason, Kerry believes we must prostrate ourselves before the United Nations and the “international community.” He believes that deaths of American soldiers are justified only as part of a U.N. effort
The only thing Kerry has been consistent on is his belief in using force only through the United Nations
This is a man who voted against supporting the “right wing Contras” in their fight against communism, and who only seems to want to use American troops for “humanitarian” purposes.
This is a man who believed America should have had a nuclear freeze during the Cold War. And now he has the unmitigated gall to bring up Ronald Reagan. The fact is, John Kerry has never met any communists who he didn't love.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Bad News For The Thugs of the World!
Looks like President Bush is surging ahead in the polls:
In a Fox News poll, President Bush leads John Kerry -- 49% to Kerry's 42%.
An ABC news tracking poll shows Bush ahead of Kerry -- 51% to 46%.
Via David Horowitz's War Blog
In a Fox News poll, President Bush leads John Kerry -- 49% to Kerry's 42%.
An ABC news tracking poll shows Bush ahead of Kerry -- 51% to 46%.
Via David Horowitz's War Blog
An Example of Why Most Celebrities Make Me Sick
Not to be out done by other chi chi celebrity Bush-bashers, musician Sting has declared that he would rather see a chimp in the White House, as opposed to President Bush.
George Soros Causing Trouble Again
Lefty billionaire George Soros, who bears a strking resemblance to actress Ann B. Davis, a.k.a. "Alice" on "The Brady Bunch," has reared his ugly head again.
This beloved Marxist has given millions of dollars to a coaltion of anti-Bush organizations under the umbrella group America Votes, comprised of labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups and community organizations now being probed for possible widespread fraud by state and federal authorities.
More...
This beloved Marxist has given millions of dollars to a coaltion of anti-Bush organizations under the umbrella group America Votes, comprised of labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups and community organizations now being probed for possible widespread fraud by state and federal authorities.
More...
Crack in Exchange For Voter Registrations
The NAACP, the far left arm of the Democrat party has some "spalin' to do." Seems these lefties will promise anything for voter registrations.
Monday, October 18, 2004
More Trouble in Florida?
According to the Associated Press, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that people who cast provisional ballots at the wrong precinct are not allowed to have their votes counted.
Under Florida law, if voters show up at a polling place but officials there have no record they are registered, they are given provisional ballots. Those ballots are held until officials determine if the voters were entitled to vote at that precinct and had not already cast ballots.
Naturally, liberals are up in arms. Several labor unions have launched a suit, saying the ruling disenfranchises voters.
Typical.
It's always racism and disenfranchisement when election officials try to make sure that only citizens who are not felons and who have not already voted, or who are not dead, do not vote.
It's looking real ugly.
Under Florida law, if voters show up at a polling place but officials there have no record they are registered, they are given provisional ballots. Those ballots are held until officials determine if the voters were entitled to vote at that precinct and had not already cast ballots.
Naturally, liberals are up in arms. Several labor unions have launched a suit, saying the ruling disenfranchises voters.
Typical.
It's always racism and disenfranchisement when election officials try to make sure that only citizens who are not felons and who have not already voted, or who are not dead, do not vote.
It's looking real ugly.
Another Democrat to Vote for George W.
Via the Times Online in the U.K...
A duel citizen of the U.K. and the U.S, and long time abour Party member, who is firmly opposed to the death penalty, even for terrorists, will be voting for the re-election of George W. Bush.
She makes an interesting case.
A duel citizen of the U.K. and the U.S, and long time abour Party member, who is firmly opposed to the death penalty, even for terrorists, will be voting for the re-election of George W. Bush.
She makes an interesting case.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Pussies in Iraq
This kind of thing makes me very angry. I mean, call me ignorant, but doesn't being a soldier in a war involve placing yourself in harms way?
What has this world come to?
Via Froggy Ruminations
What has this world come to?
Via Froggy Ruminations
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Online Dating
Just to take a little breather from the politics...
I find myself becoming more and more old-fashioned at the ripe old age of forty.
Just two nights ago, I met a guy with whom I'd been exchanging emails and phone messages. He looked attractive in his picture, and sounded fun over the phone. But then came the little warning signs.
After playing lots of phone tag, we finally spoke this past Wednesday night. He wanted to know if we could meet. I told him I had plans. But no. He insisted on wanting to see me later on in the night, and to call him when I was done with my plans because he would be busy the rest of the week. I mean can't these men plan ahead? So anyway, I did.
And here's where it got really weird. He told me he was on his way uptown to meet me but wanted me to tell him more about myself. The cell phone connection was bad. But I did hear him go on about how he considered himself to be a passionate erotic person. (Personally, I think if you actually have to tell someone that you're passionate and erotic, there's a problem right there.) He then proceeded to ask me how long ago my last relationship was, and expressed shock and dismay that it was such a long time...And couldn't I have found someone in all that time...? It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a man seems to think *less* of you for not sleeping around.
But stupid me, instead of telling him to piss off, I tried to calmly say that I considered such questions premature...That it would be more appropriate to meet him in person before talking about such things. Looking back on it, it's probably because I really wanted something to work out.
Needless to say, when I met the man face to face, he looked nothing like his picture -- he was heavy, looked way older than thirty five, invaded my personal space, and said flat out that he was looking for a casual relationship where he could see others at the same time.
As politely as possible, I told him that wouldn't work for me, and wished him luck.
On another note, I was exchanging emails with another man whom I met online who lives on the Upper West Side, right by Lincoln Center. I commented that he was lucky to live near the Lincoln Square Movie Theater, which shows interesting foreign films. So he emailed me saying we should go. I thought to myself, "fine, I'm up for making movie plans for a date." But no, the guy emailed me back saying that perhaps we could catch the 11:00 p.m. show tonight (when it was already 10:40 p.m.)
All of this reminds me of that retro dating book "The Rules" one of which was "never accept a date for Saturday night after Wednesday. The book got skewered by some critics. But I have to say, despite the tone of it, the writers made excellent points. In terms of accepting a last minute date, how do you know the man wants to see you because he really likes you, or because his other plans fell through and he doesn't want to be home alone. After all, if he makes plans in advance, you know he's blocking out time for you, and that he has the week or so to become excited about seeing you.
That certainly didn't seem to be the case with either of these guys.
I find myself becoming more and more old-fashioned at the ripe old age of forty.
Just two nights ago, I met a guy with whom I'd been exchanging emails and phone messages. He looked attractive in his picture, and sounded fun over the phone. But then came the little warning signs.
After playing lots of phone tag, we finally spoke this past Wednesday night. He wanted to know if we could meet. I told him I had plans. But no. He insisted on wanting to see me later on in the night, and to call him when I was done with my plans because he would be busy the rest of the week. I mean can't these men plan ahead? So anyway, I did.
And here's where it got really weird. He told me he was on his way uptown to meet me but wanted me to tell him more about myself. The cell phone connection was bad. But I did hear him go on about how he considered himself to be a passionate erotic person. (Personally, I think if you actually have to tell someone that you're passionate and erotic, there's a problem right there.) He then proceeded to ask me how long ago my last relationship was, and expressed shock and dismay that it was such a long time...And couldn't I have found someone in all that time...? It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a man seems to think *less* of you for not sleeping around.
But stupid me, instead of telling him to piss off, I tried to calmly say that I considered such questions premature...That it would be more appropriate to meet him in person before talking about such things. Looking back on it, it's probably because I really wanted something to work out.
Needless to say, when I met the man face to face, he looked nothing like his picture -- he was heavy, looked way older than thirty five, invaded my personal space, and said flat out that he was looking for a casual relationship where he could see others at the same time.
As politely as possible, I told him that wouldn't work for me, and wished him luck.
On another note, I was exchanging emails with another man whom I met online who lives on the Upper West Side, right by Lincoln Center. I commented that he was lucky to live near the Lincoln Square Movie Theater, which shows interesting foreign films. So he emailed me saying we should go. I thought to myself, "fine, I'm up for making movie plans for a date." But no, the guy emailed me back saying that perhaps we could catch the 11:00 p.m. show tonight (when it was already 10:40 p.m.)
All of this reminds me of that retro dating book "The Rules" one of which was "never accept a date for Saturday night after Wednesday. The book got skewered by some critics. But I have to say, despite the tone of it, the writers made excellent points. In terms of accepting a last minute date, how do you know the man wants to see you because he really likes you, or because his other plans fell through and he doesn't want to be home alone. After all, if he makes plans in advance, you know he's blocking out time for you, and that he has the week or so to become excited about seeing you.
That certainly didn't seem to be the case with either of these guys.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Bush Flushed The John!
President Bush was amazing in this very last debate. He looked relaxed, energized, warm and enthusiastic. All at the same time. And I thought he would have beaten Kerry on the foreign policy debate.
In no particular order, here are some of President Bush's points that I think he put forth beautifully.
Regarding Afghanistan, it was awesome that they had their first election in ages, with the first person to vote being a 19-year old young woman.
He also did a good job of stressing that, along with keeping the homeland safe, that he's bringing the war to the terrorists. Later on he brought up the "global test" comment which rightly put Kerry on the defensive.
The flu vaccination question was a little inane. I have to say I wasn't crazy about President Bush's response to that.
But, regarding the cost of healthcare question, President Bush put it perfectly when he said there are several contributing factors. What jumped out at me was the comment that the costs are being borne by a third party -- that it's not just between you and your doctor.
Another thing I think President Bush did very well, that he should have done more of in the second debate was to point out Kerry's record in the Senate. The clincher was when the President brought up how Kerry opposed the first Gulf War when there was an even bigger coalition and the U.N gave the go ahead. He made shish kebob out of Kerry's balls with that one.
Kerry was also on the defensive in terms of the social security issue. Karol correctly pointed out that his main response to how he would pay for social security, health care, education, and pretty much everything and the kitchen sink, would be to "roll back" the tax cuts on people making over $200,000 per year.
The sad thing is, there are lots of people who think it's ok to tax "the rich" as if being rich automatically means you didn't work to achieve the wealth -- that the wealth is somehow ill-begotten --that if you're rich, you have less of a right to your money than if you were less prosperous. They blank out on the fact that it's not their money to take. These people will all be voting for Kerry. Many of these people hate President Bush with a passion that goes far beyond disagreeing with his policies.
So as I see it, this race will be very heated and close, and I'm sure there will be lots more lawsuits, thanks to that beloved trendsetter Al Whore, if Bush wins.
In no particular order, here are some of President Bush's points that I think he put forth beautifully.
Regarding Afghanistan, it was awesome that they had their first election in ages, with the first person to vote being a 19-year old young woman.
He also did a good job of stressing that, along with keeping the homeland safe, that he's bringing the war to the terrorists. Later on he brought up the "global test" comment which rightly put Kerry on the defensive.
The flu vaccination question was a little inane. I have to say I wasn't crazy about President Bush's response to that.
But, regarding the cost of healthcare question, President Bush put it perfectly when he said there are several contributing factors. What jumped out at me was the comment that the costs are being borne by a third party -- that it's not just between you and your doctor.
Another thing I think President Bush did very well, that he should have done more of in the second debate was to point out Kerry's record in the Senate. The clincher was when the President brought up how Kerry opposed the first Gulf War when there was an even bigger coalition and the U.N gave the go ahead. He made shish kebob out of Kerry's balls with that one.
Kerry was also on the defensive in terms of the social security issue. Karol correctly pointed out that his main response to how he would pay for social security, health care, education, and pretty much everything and the kitchen sink, would be to "roll back" the tax cuts on people making over $200,000 per year.
The sad thing is, there are lots of people who think it's ok to tax "the rich" as if being rich automatically means you didn't work to achieve the wealth -- that the wealth is somehow ill-begotten --that if you're rich, you have less of a right to your money than if you were less prosperous. They blank out on the fact that it's not their money to take. These people will all be voting for Kerry. Many of these people hate President Bush with a passion that goes far beyond disagreeing with his policies.
So as I see it, this race will be very heated and close, and I'm sure there will be lots more lawsuits, thanks to that beloved trendsetter Al Whore, if Bush wins.
Monday, October 11, 2004
New York Magazine Published My Letter
Hey folks:
Just a quick note to let you all know that New York Magazine published my Letter to the Editor.
A while back, I wrote an angry letter to them in response to the main feature of their September 27 issue -- "The Perfect Little Bump."
This is a first for me. The only way I found out was when my sister called and said "congratulations!"
I said "what for?"
And she said "for your New York Magazine letter."
Then I said "what about it?" (I mean I wrote it and sent it in a few weeks ago.)
It was then that she told me it had been published, although without the nasty part about their editorial focusing on nothing but whiney, how powered limousine liberal New Yorkers.
Well who would have ever thought?
Just a quick note to let you all know that New York Magazine published my Letter to the Editor.
A while back, I wrote an angry letter to them in response to the main feature of their September 27 issue -- "The Perfect Little Bump."
This is a first for me. The only way I found out was when my sister called and said "congratulations!"
I said "what for?"
And she said "for your New York Magazine letter."
Then I said "what about it?" (I mean I wrote it and sent it in a few weeks ago.)
It was then that she told me it had been published, although without the nasty part about their editorial focusing on nothing but whiney, how powered limousine liberal New Yorkers.
Well who would have ever thought?
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Liberal Jews
There is no end in sight to the cookiness of America's Liberal Jews!
As a Jew, I'm shocked and appalled!
As a group, Jews have done very well for themselves professionally, considering they make up such a small percentage of the U.S. population. And if you spoke to these people on an any number of subjects, you would get very intelligent responses.
But on issues of what's good for the Jews in the United States, Israel, and all over the world they're dumber than lemmings.
As a Jew, I'm shocked and appalled!
As a group, Jews have done very well for themselves professionally, considering they make up such a small percentage of the U.S. population. And if you spoke to these people on an any number of subjects, you would get very intelligent responses.
But on issues of what's good for the Jews in the United States, Israel, and all over the world they're dumber than lemmings.
One More Thought
Kerry keeps saying he'll never let another country have any veto over our foreign policy, BUT...
There's always that BUT.
So hypocritical.
There's always that BUT.
So hypocritical.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Bush Kicked Butt!
President Bush really came out swinging with this last debate. Even with the release of the Duelfur Report (sp?) it was like night and day, compared to the first one.
Here are some things that stood out for me.
John Kerry is back to using that wealthy 1% line that Al Whore used to always use.
Kerry also charged that the world is now more dangerous because of President Bush's "judgment"...That he wouldn't have rushed to war...That he would have used it "wisely." It's the same old bullshit about getting a bigger coalition, namely his beloved France and Germany involved, under the guise of "working with our allies." Puhleeze!!
But just as usual, John Kerry contradicted himself. In one breath, he said that we rushed to war, didn't give Hans Blix enough time...didn't give the sanctions more time. But when asked about how he'd deal with Iraq, Kerry said "I don't think you can rely on just sanctions."
Still I think President Bush missed several opportunities to flush this John down the toilet once and for all.
Fist off, President Bush could have more forcefully said that this war is not just about Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden because Kerry kept bringing him up.
Also, regarding Iraq, I really wished President Bush would have brought up the fact that after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we joined the War in Europe and North Africa. Can you imagine anyone of that day saying that Roosevelt lacked judgment...That he fell down on the job for sending troops to Europe and North Africa? I don't think so.
President Bush should have also brought up the fact that Kerry (and other Democrats) also opposed the first Gulf War when we had a bigger coalition AND authorization to use force from the U.N. That would have been amazing.
Regarding tax cuts, President Bush presented his position forcefully. But I think what he really need to convey is that Kerry with his rhetoric of the 1% people is denigrating this country's producers. It would be safe to say that everyone in the audience, or all of us in the world aspire to be able to make that kind of money, and that Kerry's rhetoric and policies would only end up penalizing the producers and creators.
And last but not least, Kerry brought up bunker busting technologies again...and how it's no fair that we have them but other (rogue?) countries cannot. At this point, President Bush should have exposed Kerry for the moral relativist that he truly is. I mean how is it possible to morally compare the United States with, say, North Korea?
So to sum up, President Bush looked much more relaxed and responded more forcefully this time. He appeared warmer and more likeable than Kerry. This Town Hall type set up really worked for him...The questions were very intelligent. But if he were more forceful, he could have made shish kebob out of Kerry's balls.
Here are some things that stood out for me.
John Kerry is back to using that wealthy 1% line that Al Whore used to always use.
Kerry also charged that the world is now more dangerous because of President Bush's "judgment"...That he wouldn't have rushed to war...That he would have used it "wisely." It's the same old bullshit about getting a bigger coalition, namely his beloved France and Germany involved, under the guise of "working with our allies." Puhleeze!!
But just as usual, John Kerry contradicted himself. In one breath, he said that we rushed to war, didn't give Hans Blix enough time...didn't give the sanctions more time. But when asked about how he'd deal with Iraq, Kerry said "I don't think you can rely on just sanctions."
Still I think President Bush missed several opportunities to flush this John down the toilet once and for all.
Fist off, President Bush could have more forcefully said that this war is not just about Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden because Kerry kept bringing him up.
Also, regarding Iraq, I really wished President Bush would have brought up the fact that after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we joined the War in Europe and North Africa. Can you imagine anyone of that day saying that Roosevelt lacked judgment...That he fell down on the job for sending troops to Europe and North Africa? I don't think so.
President Bush should have also brought up the fact that Kerry (and other Democrats) also opposed the first Gulf War when we had a bigger coalition AND authorization to use force from the U.N. That would have been amazing.
Regarding tax cuts, President Bush presented his position forcefully. But I think what he really need to convey is that Kerry with his rhetoric of the 1% people is denigrating this country's producers. It would be safe to say that everyone in the audience, or all of us in the world aspire to be able to make that kind of money, and that Kerry's rhetoric and policies would only end up penalizing the producers and creators.
And last but not least, Kerry brought up bunker busting technologies again...and how it's no fair that we have them but other (rogue?) countries cannot. At this point, President Bush should have exposed Kerry for the moral relativist that he truly is. I mean how is it possible to morally compare the United States with, say, North Korea?
So to sum up, President Bush looked much more relaxed and responded more forcefully this time. He appeared warmer and more likeable than Kerry. This Town Hall type set up really worked for him...The questions were very intelligent. But if he were more forceful, he could have made shish kebob out of Kerry's balls.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Iraqi Bio Weapons Lab?
Check this out...via Worldnet Daily.com
I believe this is one of the bio weapons labs that Ann Coulter referred to a while back in one of her columns criticizing the MSM.
I guess the main thing that bothers me about all of Kerry and Edwards' bellyaching is that they're, in essence implying that America has no right to use military force for her own rational self-interest, if not proof of Iraq's evil intent has been found. When they keep bringing up the mistake of the Iraqi invasion, it's almost like they're giving Iraq and the U.S equal moral status, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and even now with the insurgents running wild, is a rogue state. America, on the other hand, is a free, capitalistic (for the most part)country that respects individual rights, and the rule of law. It's where people come to from all over the world, legally or illegally to make a better life for themselves and their families or for our generous welfare benefits. I mean, whoever heard of people trying to sneak illegally into Cuba?
So to paraphrase Ayn Rand, a moral, free, capitalistic country has every right to invade a rogue state if they feel it's in their country's rational self-interest. Likewise a rogue state has no moral ground to stand on when its leader complain of being "occupied."
I believe this is one of the bio weapons labs that Ann Coulter referred to a while back in one of her columns criticizing the MSM.
I guess the main thing that bothers me about all of Kerry and Edwards' bellyaching is that they're, in essence implying that America has no right to use military force for her own rational self-interest, if not proof of Iraq's evil intent has been found. When they keep bringing up the mistake of the Iraqi invasion, it's almost like they're giving Iraq and the U.S equal moral status, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and even now with the insurgents running wild, is a rogue state. America, on the other hand, is a free, capitalistic (for the most part)country that respects individual rights, and the rule of law. It's where people come to from all over the world, legally or illegally to make a better life for themselves and their families or for our generous welfare benefits. I mean, whoever heard of people trying to sneak illegally into Cuba?
So to paraphrase Ayn Rand, a moral, free, capitalistic country has every right to invade a rogue state if they feel it's in their country's rational self-interest. Likewise a rogue state has no moral ground to stand on when its leader complain of being "occupied."
Another Thought on John Edwards
I forgot to add what I thought was a so-called flip flop for John Edwards. Personally, I mean, I kind of see it that way, but Kerry supporters won't
John Edwards said repeatedly that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then he went on to say that he's for giving benefits for gay couples, like hospital visitation rights and making of wills. After that, he said he was against the constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I can't help thinking that if Dick Cheney or any other Republican said that, he'd be crucified by liberals.
John Edwards said repeatedly that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then he went on to say that he's for giving benefits for gay couples, like hospital visitation rights and making of wills. After that, he said he was against the constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I can't help thinking that if Dick Cheney or any other Republican said that, he'd be crucified by liberals.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Vice Presidential Debate
I just finished watching the vice presidential debate. I hate to say it, but I kind of wish Dick Cheney did the first presidential debate as well. He came across, for the most part, as sharp, knowledgeable, and in command of the situation. Although I thought some of his responses were weak, he never seemed to falter.
John Edwards, I have to say, is quite the pretty boy. To his credit, he also came across as very relaxed, articulate and warm, which will probably go over well with some women.
Anyway, here are some of the things the candidates said that jumped out at me:
Regarding Iraq/Al Qaida/9/11
John Edwards kept repeating that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11...that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida...
Dick Cheney's response to this was weak. No mention was made of Czech intelligence reports of meetings between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence.
Likewise, no mention was made of the Iraqi documents obtained by CNS News
On another note, Gwen, the interviewer from PBS asked some good questions. The one I liked best was "What is a global test if not a global veto?
Edwards' response was typical.
He wants to "tell the world the truth... He says it's "critical that we be credible..." And "what we say at the UN" should hold weight (I'm paraphrasing this last part.)
So my question is why? Critical to whom? Why do they make the U.N out to be a hallowed moral arbiter of world affairs when it's nothing but a group of rogue states who hate America? Who cares what rogue states think of America?
Regarding Kerry's Senate voting record, Cheney did a good job of listing what the Senator voted against, which President Bush didn't do. He mentioned El Salvador, and how that country held elections despite the chaos there, comparing it to Iraq. Cheney should have also brought up the fact that Kerry supported the communist puppet regime of the Sandinistas, but unfortunately didn't.
After the debate, some of the Fox News commentators said that Cheney won the first part of the debate, and Edwards the second half. But I'm not so sure. It was in the second half of the debate where I saw the full extent of Edwards' bullshitting abilities. Here are some quotes that struck out at me:
"Millionaires sitting by their swimming pools" (when discussing rolling back tax cuts on people making $200K or more per year)
"People earning salaries pay more taxes than these millionaires"
"tax cuts for multimillionaires"
Vice President Cheney correctly pointed out that rolling back tax cuts on people making $200K or more would hurt small business...that 7 out of 10 jobs are now created by small businesses.
Regarding health care, here are a few more doozie quotes from Edwards:
"see to it that everything (the healthcare) available to memebers of Congress is available to all Americans"
"We'll stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies"
Really? And who is to pay for all these goodies? The Tooth Fairy?
Regarding jobs:
(We'll) "invest in jobs"
"get rid of bureaucratic spending in Washington"
Sounds like an oxymoron to me!
John Edwards, I have to say, is quite the pretty boy. To his credit, he also came across as very relaxed, articulate and warm, which will probably go over well with some women.
Anyway, here are some of the things the candidates said that jumped out at me:
Regarding Iraq/Al Qaida/9/11
John Edwards kept repeating that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11...that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida...
Dick Cheney's response to this was weak. No mention was made of Czech intelligence reports of meetings between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence.
Likewise, no mention was made of the Iraqi documents obtained by CNS News
On another note, Gwen, the interviewer from PBS asked some good questions. The one I liked best was "What is a global test if not a global veto?
Edwards' response was typical.
He wants to "tell the world the truth... He says it's "critical that we be credible..." And "what we say at the UN" should hold weight (I'm paraphrasing this last part.)
So my question is why? Critical to whom? Why do they make the U.N out to be a hallowed moral arbiter of world affairs when it's nothing but a group of rogue states who hate America? Who cares what rogue states think of America?
Regarding Kerry's Senate voting record, Cheney did a good job of listing what the Senator voted against, which President Bush didn't do. He mentioned El Salvador, and how that country held elections despite the chaos there, comparing it to Iraq. Cheney should have also brought up the fact that Kerry supported the communist puppet regime of the Sandinistas, but unfortunately didn't.
After the debate, some of the Fox News commentators said that Cheney won the first part of the debate, and Edwards the second half. But I'm not so sure. It was in the second half of the debate where I saw the full extent of Edwards' bullshitting abilities. Here are some quotes that struck out at me:
"Millionaires sitting by their swimming pools" (when discussing rolling back tax cuts on people making $200K or more per year)
"People earning salaries pay more taxes than these millionaires"
"tax cuts for multimillionaires"
Vice President Cheney correctly pointed out that rolling back tax cuts on people making $200K or more would hurt small business...that 7 out of 10 jobs are now created by small businesses.
Regarding health care, here are a few more doozie quotes from Edwards:
"see to it that everything (the healthcare) available to memebers of Congress is available to all Americans"
"We'll stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies"
Really? And who is to pay for all these goodies? The Tooth Fairy?
Regarding jobs:
(We'll) "invest in jobs"
"get rid of bureaucratic spending in Washington"
Sounds like an oxymoron to me!
Iraqi Nuclear Physicist Interview
Monday, October 04, 2004
More News About Saddam Hussein's Extensive Terror Ties
Here's some news via the Power Line Blog regarding documents found in Iraq by U.S Military and obtained by the Cybercast News Service.
I looked through this story on the CNS News web site earlier today. Somehow, I don't think the New York Times or any of the other mainstream media will cover this. If they do, they'll attach very little importance to it.
Here are some excerps:
"They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)"
"The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."
"An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture."
Since Kerry firmly staked out his anti-Iraq war position in Thursday's debates, I'm curious as to what effect this news will have on his campaign. Granted the mainstream media will pooh-pooh it as another jihad job by people in their pajamas. But then again, look at what happened with the Dan Rather/Memogate business.
I looked through this story on the CNS News web site earlier today. Somehow, I don't think the New York Times or any of the other mainstream media will cover this. If they do, they'll attach very little importance to it.
Here are some excerps:
"They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)"
"The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."
"An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture."
Since Kerry firmly staked out his anti-Iraq war position in Thursday's debates, I'm curious as to what effect this news will have on his campaign. Granted the mainstream media will pooh-pooh it as another jihad job by people in their pajamas. But then again, look at what happened with the Dan Rather/Memogate business.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Another Cook
Check out what this former Italian hostage held by insurgents in Iraq had to say. As usual, it's America's fault.
The only part of her statement I agree with is when she said she would be very dissapointed if the Italian government paid money for her release.
The only part of her statement I agree with is when she said she would be very dissapointed if the Italian government paid money for her release.
Get a Load of This
A woman protesting outside the University of Miami said she would rather vote for a serial rapist than President Bush
Bush and Kerry's First Debate
Last night, I watched the debate at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York, then came home and reviewed a transcript of the debate on the Fox News web site.
To Kerry's credit, he came across as poised, articulate, and on the offensive. President Bush, for the most part came across as on the defensive, but made a few good retorts.
As I suspected, Kerry went on and on about how we've snubbed our allies and insufficiently prostrated ourselves before the U.N. with regards to the war in Iraq
"First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections."
"And we pushed our allies aside."
Notice that ONLY when the issue of using military force comes up do liberals EVER cry about about the cost to taxpayers. It's like the only role of government in their view, is that of a sugar daddy. Try bringing up the cost of failing public education and welfare to a liberal, and you'll get roars of protest. But God forbid Americans should spend any money defending themselves and their interests...
"And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq."
Also, Jim Lehrer asked many inane questions, the worst of which was "What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?"
I mean really, do the terrorists, courtesy of their friends at Al Jazeera, need to hear this from us?
Kerry's response on whether or not he would ever launch a pre-emptive war is telling:
"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
There's always that "BUT." And what is all this business about proving it to "the world?" Who gives a rat's behind?
President Bush's response was funny and absolutely the correct one:
"Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' you take preemptive action if you pass a global test."
"My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."
Notice also that the only time Kerry *did* say he'd ever use military force (without involving our beloved "allies") was for Sudan. It's only for peace keeping missions that liberals ever advocate the use of our military.
"But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda."
Finally, Kerry's comment on nuclear proliferation is quite telling:
"You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."
Looks like somebody here has trouble distinguishing a free prosperous country that respects the rule of law, from the many rogue states in the world. Typical...
Aside from these points, President Bush could have skewered Kerry on his activities upon returning from Vietnam, (how that is NOT a valid campaign issue I don't understand.) and how his Senate voting record to date has been consistent with someone who is anti-U.S. military and soft on communism/terrorism.
To Kerry's credit, he came across as poised, articulate, and on the offensive. President Bush, for the most part came across as on the defensive, but made a few good retorts.
As I suspected, Kerry went on and on about how we've snubbed our allies and insufficiently prostrated ourselves before the U.N. with regards to the war in Iraq
"First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections."
"And we pushed our allies aside."
Notice that ONLY when the issue of using military force comes up do liberals EVER cry about about the cost to taxpayers. It's like the only role of government in their view, is that of a sugar daddy. Try bringing up the cost of failing public education and welfare to a liberal, and you'll get roars of protest. But God forbid Americans should spend any money defending themselves and their interests...
"And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq."
Also, Jim Lehrer asked many inane questions, the worst of which was "What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?"
I mean really, do the terrorists, courtesy of their friends at Al Jazeera, need to hear this from us?
Kerry's response on whether or not he would ever launch a pre-emptive war is telling:
"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
There's always that "BUT." And what is all this business about proving it to "the world?" Who gives a rat's behind?
President Bush's response was funny and absolutely the correct one:
"Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' you take preemptive action if you pass a global test."
"My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."
Notice also that the only time Kerry *did* say he'd ever use military force (without involving our beloved "allies") was for Sudan. It's only for peace keeping missions that liberals ever advocate the use of our military.
"But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda."
Finally, Kerry's comment on nuclear proliferation is quite telling:
"You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."
Looks like somebody here has trouble distinguishing a free prosperous country that respects the rule of law, from the many rogue states in the world. Typical...
Aside from these points, President Bush could have skewered Kerry on his activities upon returning from Vietnam, (how that is NOT a valid campaign issue I don't understand.) and how his Senate voting record to date has been consistent with someone who is anti-U.S. military and soft on communism/terrorism.
